ALD-079 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-3949
___________
JOSEPH ARUANNO,
Appellant
v.
JOHN S. CORZINE;
RICHARD J. CODEY; JOHN O. BENNETT;
DONALD T. DIFRANCESCO; JAMES MCGREEVEY;
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF PAROLE;
MARIO PAPPAROZZI; WILLIAM MCCARGO
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-05270)
District Judge: Honorable Anne E. Thompson
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
December 29, 2010
Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN AND VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Filed January 13, 2011)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Aruanno, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s orders
granting the motion for summary judgment filed by certain defendants and dismissing the
complaint as to the remaining defendants for failure to serve. For the reasons that follow,
we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
The District Court dismissed Aruanno’s initial complaint without prejudice for
failure to state a claim. Aruanno then filed an amended complaint, which the District
Court also treated as requesting appointment of counsel. Aruanno alleged that defendants
violated his due process rights by failing to respond to his petition for clemency. He
alleged that he had sent copies of his petition to every defendant named in his complaint,
specifically stating that he sent his petition to the New Jersey State Parole Board (“Parole
Board”) and the Governor’s Office twice. The District Court determined that the
amended complaint stated a claim for relief, reopened the case, and denied Aruanno’s
request for counsel.
Defendants Jon S. Corzine, Richard Cody, and the Parole Board filed a motion for
summary judgment, which was granted. By order entered January 7, 2010, the District
Court ordered Aruanno to effectuate service of process on the remaining defendants
within thirty days.1 Aruanno filed a motion, requesting the District Court to reconsider
its grant of summary judgment and denial of appointment of counsel. This motion was
denied.
On February 19, 2010, Aruanno filed another motion for appointment of counsel,
which the District Court denied; Aruanno sought reconsideration of that order. On
1
The District Court also granted defendants Corzine, Codey, and the Parole
Board’s motion to quash service of process that was improperly effectuated on behalf of
defendants Mario Papparozzi and William McCargo.
2
September 16, 2010, the District Court denied the motion for reconsideration and
dismissed the claims against the remaining defendants John O. Bennett, Donald T.
DiFrancesco, William McCargo, James McGreevey, and Mario Papparozzi for failure to
properly effect service of process. Aruanno filed a timely appeal.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review
over an order granting summary judgment. Anderson v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp., 621
F.3d 261, 267 (3d Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Summary judgment is granted when
“there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We view the facts in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. See Anderson, 621 F.3d at 267. We review for abuse
of discretion the District Court’s orders denying appointment of counsel, denying
reconsideration, and dismissing the complaint as to the remaining defendants for failure
to serve those defendants. Max’s Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 673 (3d Cir.
1999); Boley v. Kaymark, 123 F.3d 756, 758 (3d Cir. 1997); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d
147, 155 n.4 (3d Cir. 1993).
A. Summary Judgment
“An inmate has no constitutional or inherent right to commutation of his
sentence.” Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272, 280 (1998) (citations
omitted). Due process is not violated where “the procedures in question do no more than
confirm that the clemency and pardon powers are committed . . . to the authority of the
executive.” Id. at 276.
3
The record reflects that Aruanno sent correspondence regarding an application for
clemency to the Office of the Governor. An Executive Clemency Assistant with the
Governor’s office responded, informing Aruanno that applications for clemency should
be sent to the State Parole Board, which conducts an investigation before the petition is
referred to the Governor. The assistant also informed Aruanno that there was no record
of his clemency application. In her affidavit, Carinne Rivers, a Parole Board Hearing
Officer III,2 stated that she conducted a search of the Parole Board’s records and
database, which indicated the Parole Board sent a clemency application to Aruanno in
September 2002. However, the Parole Board never received a clemency application from
him.
New Jersey law requires that a prisoner seeking clemency make his request upon
the form and procedures prescribed by the Governor. See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:167-6.
This required Aruanno to send an application for clemency to the Parole Board to
conduct an investigation and report its recommendation to the Governor. See id.; §
2A:167-7. Although Aruanno alleges that he sent his clemency application to defendants
and claims that in retaliation for litigation against the Parole Board his legal documents
have been thrown out (and that he no longer has copies of his clemency application), he
has failed to provide evidence, such as an affidavit, to demonstrate that he complied and
that defendants failed to comply with the State procedures for requesting clemency. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1), (e); Vitalo v. Cabot Corp., 399 F.3d 536, 542 (3d Cir. 2005)
2
As a Parole Board Hearing Officer III, Rivers is responsible for cataloguing and
4
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)) (the non-moving party must produce admissible evidence
containing “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial”). As there is “no
genuine dispute as to any material fact,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2), the motion for
summary judgment was properly granted.
B. Failure to Effectuate Process
“The plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within
the time allowed by Rule 4(m).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1). “If a defendant is not served
within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without
prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Aruanno was given until September 7, 2010, well over the 120 days prescribed by
Rule 4(m), to effectuate service of process on the remaining defendants. The District
Court was not presented with good cause to excuse Aruanno’s continued lack of
diligence.3 See Boley, 123 F.3d at 758. We therefore find that the District Court did not
abuse its discretion in dismissing the claims against the remaining defendants.4
processing clemency applications received by the Parole Board.
3
Aruanno baldly stated that he could not locate the remaining defendants because
defendants have retaliated against him by placing him in solitary confinement for
commencing this litigation and he cannot afford an attorney. However, it is unclear and
Aruanno does not explain how defendants have retaliated against him when no defendant
is employed at Special Treatment Unit-Annex, where he is committed.
4
The District Court properly granted the motion to quash service of process that
was effectuated on behalf of defendants Mario Papparozzi and William McCargo.
Process was improperly accepted by the Parole Board because Papparozzi and McCargo
no longer worked for the Parole Board. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e).
5
C. Appointment of Counsel
In determining whether to grant a motion for appointment of counsel, the district
court first must determine, as a threshold matter, whether the “claim has arguable merit in
fact and law.” Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155. If this threshold is met, the Court may consider a
number of additional factors, including: the litigant’s ability to present the case, the
difficulty of the particular legal issues, the degree to which a factual investigation is
required, the appellant’s capacity to retain counsel on his own, the extent to which the
case is likely to turn on credibility determinations, and whether the case will require
expert testimony. Id. at 155-56. The District Court's denial of Aruanno’s first request for
appointment of counsel was not an abuse of discretion. The District Court found that
Aruanno ably amended his complaint in response to the Court’s order. The District
Court’s denial of Aruanno’s subsequent motion for counsel also was not an abuse of
discretion because the District Court properly determined that the legal issues involved in
the action were not complex, and the case did not require expert testimony. See Tabron,
6 F.3d at 155.
D. Motions for Reconsideration
The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Aruanno’s motions for
reconsideration. “The purpose of a motion for reconsideration . . . is to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Max’s Seafood Cafe, 176
F.3d at 677. A judgment may be amended if the party seeking reconsideration
demonstrates that there is an intervening change in the controlling law, the availability of
6
new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice. Id. In his motions for reconsideration, Aruanno merely restated the arguments
that he made in his response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
After reviewing the District Court record and considering the arguments raised in
Aruanno’s response in this Court, we conclude that the District Court properly granted
defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims against the
remaining defendants. We also conclude that the District Court properly denied
Aruanno’s requests for appointment of counsel and his motions for reconsideration.
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s orders.
7